SSRN Author: Stephen E. HendersonStephen E. Henderson SSRN Contenthttp://www.ssrn.com/author=106990
http://www.ssrn.com/rss/en-usSun, 02 Aug 2015 01:09:03 GMTeditor@ssrn.com (Editor)Sun, 02 Aug 2015 01:09:03 GMTwebmaster@ssrn.com (WebMaster)SSRN RSS Generator 1.0New: Teaching Criminal Procedure: Why Socrates Would Use YouTubeIn this invited contribution to the Law Journal’s annual teaching volume, we pay some homage to the great philosopher whose spirit allegedly guides our classrooms, but in service of two concrete goals. One, we employ dialogue to describe the “nuts and bolts” of teaching criminal procedure, most of which are equally relevant to any doctrinal law school course (including course description, office hours, seating charts and attendance, class decorum and recording, student participation, laptops, textbooks, class preparation and presentation, and exams). Two, we explain the benefits of using multimedia in the classroom, including a few of the many modules found on our Crimprof Multipedia service. We organize its benefits into four “h’s” (humor, humanization, headlines, and hypotheticals), and we give several examples of each for a topic that pervades criminal procedure: racial (in)justice. http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=2637408
http://www.ssrn.com/1416551.htmlSat, 01 Aug 2015 08:19:32 GMTREVISION: Regulating Drones Under the First and Fourth AmendmentsThe FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 requires the Federal Aviation Administration to integrate unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), or drones, into the national airspace system by September of this year. Yet perhaps because of their chilling accuracy in targeted killings abroad, perhaps because of an increasing consciousness of diminishing privacy more generally, and perhaps simply because of a fear of the unknown, divergent UAV-restrictive legislation has been proposed in Congress and enacted in a number of states. Ultimately, given UAV utility and cost effectiveness over a vast range of tasks, widespread commercial use seems certain. So it is imperative to understand the constitutional restraints on public flight and constitutional protections afforded private flight.
Unfortunately, while there are a few Fourth Amendment precedents in manned aviation, they are mired not only in 1980s technology but also in the 1980s third party doctrine, and therefore do not reflect more ... http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=2574378
http://www.ssrn.com/1382969.htmlSat, 21 Mar 2015 03:46:18 GMTREVISION: Regulating Drones Under the First and Fourth AmendmentsThe FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 requires the Federal Aviation Administration to integrate unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), or drones, into the national airspace system by September of this year. Yet perhaps because of their chilling accuracy in targeted killings abroad, perhaps because of an increasing consciousness of diminishing privacy more generally, and perhaps simply because of a fear of the unknown, divergent UAV-restrictive legislation has been proposed in Congress and enacted in a number of states. Ultimately, given UAV utility and cost effectiveness over a vast range of tasks, widespread commercial use seems certain. So it is imperative to understand the constitutional restraints on public flight and constitutional protections afforded private flight.
Unfortunately, while there are a few Fourth Amendment precedents in manned aviation, they are mired not only in 1980s technology but also in the 1980s third party doctrine, and therefore do not reflect more ... http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=2574378
http://www.ssrn.com/1379076.htmlSat, 07 Mar 2015 08:06:56 GMTREVISION: Reforming the Grand Jury to Protect Privacy in Third Party RecordsIn late 2014, two grand juries returned controversial no bill decisions in police killings, one in Ferguson, Missouri, and one in New York City. These outcomes have renewed calls for grand jury reform, and whatever one thinks of these particular processes and outcomes, such reform is long overdue. One logical source of reform to better respect privacy in records, which would have incidental benefits beyond this privacy focus, would be the newly enacted American Bar Association Standards for Criminal Justice on Law Enforcement Access to Third Party Records (LEATPR).
But LEATPR exempts from its requirements access to records via a grand jury subpoena, and, perhaps more surprisingly, potentially exempts access via a “functionally equivalent prosecutorial subpoena.” The impetus for this exemption was a concern that applying LEATPR’s requirements to the grand jury, or even to its functional equivalent, is unnecessary and might radically undermine longstanding systems of criminal ... http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=2478223
http://www.ssrn.com/1372990.htmlWed, 11 Feb 2015 15:22:39 GMTREVISION: Protecting Privacy in Third Party Records: Can the Grand Jury Help?The newly enacted American Bar Association Standards for Criminal Justice on Law Enforcement Access to Third Party Records (LEATPR) fill a constitutional hole in privacy protection by rejecting the third party doctrine. In place of that historic federal constitutional void, LEATPR implements four methods. First, some level of justification is required for law enforcement access to records. This level of justification is not uniform, but instead varies with the degree of privacy of the desired record. Second, where obtained records have a relatively high degree of privacy, LEATPR requires providing notice to the focus of those records. Third, LEATPR requires that obtained records be protected against unauthorized access and distribution. And, fourth, the legislature must create accountability mechanisms to guarantee these substantive protections. But LEATPR exempts from its requirements access to records via a grand jury subpoena, and, perhaps more surprisingly, potentially ... http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=2478223
http://www.ssrn.com/1325879.htmlSun, 10 Aug 2014 19:38:33 GMT